Stupak for Gov? ... today in the governor's race

Please no Stupak (4.00 / 1)

Most of these "candidates" sound like someone throwing names against a wall. What's scary is that Stupak actually thinks anyone would vote for him.  

---

by: NoviDemocrat @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 19:57:23 PM UTC

Stupak (0.00 / 0)

I got a letter about a week ago from Stupak announcing he was leaving C Street because he feels he's been unjustly accused/associated with the other religious zealots who occupy that address. Lordy, lordy, I hope this signals he has aspirations back in Lansing.

Come to think of it that wouldn't be a bad idea, the Upper Peninsula would be rid of him.

---

by: cueball @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 18:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Baffled (0.00 / 0)

I haven't seen anyone lay out any plausible case in favor of Mr. Stupak running for Governor.  Can you help me understand this better?

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 20:27:00 PM UTC

Probably couldn't even win his own District in November (4.00 / 1)

And the mere act of running for Governor (and retiring from the House) would hand his Congressional seat to any Republican challenger with a pulse.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 20:52:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reasons... (4.00 / 1)

I don't know that you can really take much out of Bart Stupak's relative unpopularity on this blog.

First off, and I ought to point out that not only am I pro-choice but I'm also an atheist who finds religion to be fairly silly, he'd have instant cache with people whose primary motivator as a voter are pro-Life issues.  All those Republicans running for office can talk the talk, but Stupak has walked the walked and in the process dealt a stinging defeat to pro-choice lobbying groups.  So, Stupak would be a tremendous threat to the religious base of the Republican Party.

He would also do that while also possessing a pretty decent record otherwise.  I mean, he's got one of the strongest environmental records of any Congressman from Michigan, and he also supports universal health care (right, with that big caveat called the Stupak Amendment).

Third, he is an ex-state trooper, and that combined with being from the U.P., would give him strong blue collar appeal.  Plus, I don't know that as a group, union workers are terribly pro-choice.

Fourth, he also gives the impression of being smart as a whip, which when you consider his blue collar appeal means that his opponents are always at considerable danger at underestimating him.

If he were to jump into the race, I could consider him a very intriguing candidate.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 21:13:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

   In a 2-way primary race, Stupak would lose, big. With 2 or three other viable  candidates(illitch, Bernero, Dillon) splitting the vote, Stupak could pull out a primary win. In the general election, he possibly could win. The big problems in the general are that pro-lifers and pro-gun voters will still tend to vote for the Republican and women voters (most of the Democratic vote) may decide to stay home. I also don't see Stupak energizing the Detroit vote. A Stupak victory in the primary could leave Dems even more unenthusiastic about the general election.    

---

by: MarvToler @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 23:18:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know, I really don't know... (0.00 / 0)

I think Stupak could come across to an awful lot of people as a Democrat in the vein of Harry Truman.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 23:50:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do we continue to think (4.00 / 1)

that highly religious people will vote for a socially conservative Democrat, when they have a viable alternative in the form of a Republican?

The reason Stupak is as conservative as he is, is because he needs to appeal to conservative Democrats and Independents in his district, which, BTW, is closer to 50-50% than a slam dunk for Republicans.

Democrats can put all the dog and pony shows that they want, but I have yet to see any data that supports conservative Republicans ever defecting to support a Democrat. These individuals have issue in addition to Gods, gays and guns for voting for Republicans.

And, like appeals to African American voters by Republicans, these voters aren't stupid either.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 01:19:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not all religious go GOP (4.00 / 3)

Among Evangelicals something like 25% end up voting Dems.

Likewise, many highly religious people (aw, let's just Catholics), don't especially like the GOP away from the life issue.  In fact, they may actively despise them.  

In short, the religious are not an automatic GOP lock.  Indeed, here in W Michigan, they make up significant portions of the Dem Party.  

---

by: Harris @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 03:24:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

it's complex. But assuming that you can draw socially conservative voters (who make those issues their number one priority) without losing moderate or liberal voters (who make the opposite position their priority) is a mug's game.

Better to appeal to religious voters by making a much more nuanced approach. Show how you are pro-life by highlighting the shortcomings of the Republicans approach, etc.

Simply nominating a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Dem just won't work state wide for the governor's race.

There is a reason these folks vote Republican...and it is more than finding some one who meets a check list on social issues.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 17:11:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Match the candidate to the District (0.00 / 0)

I'm with you that there is little to be gained in a social conservative candidate.  That said, the practical experience is that in conservative suburbs sometimes the social conservative gets heard.  

"Sometimes" is the cue.  On the west side, we discovered its limits with Hawley's run.  Oh, he was conservative enough, but the district was just too ingrained in its voting pattern.

That in turn points to the use of conservative candidates on our side. It's a door-opener for future cycles; it is also a way to supress R voting.  We can cut out the energy of social conservative -- and again, depending on your district, that can be crucial.  

---

by: Harris @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 22:55:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak (0.00 / 0)

Stupak makes no secret of the fact he is a "devout Roman Catholic" as well as saying in the same breath that he is Chair of the Pro Life Caucus in the House. Some may believe him smart as a whip, others believe him to be less than the sharpest knife in the drawer. Also, I'm not sure his state trooper time would be a positive from some comments that have been bandied about in years past.  

---

by: cueball @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 18:57:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking at two Pennsylvania examples (0.00 / 0)

I think Michigan is between Pennsylvania and Ohio when it comes to politics. All three are fairly similar, although Ohio is slightly to the right of MI and PA.

Is Stupak Ron Klink or is Stupak Bob Casey? Klink was a pro-life, and sometimes pro-gun rep, although he switched to anti in 2000. Bob Casey has his dad's name, and won statewide as treasurer or another similar position.

One got double flanked and lost bad to Rick Santorum in 2000 despite Gore winning the state. Bob Casey was a blowout in 2006.

I don't know. I will say that Stupak is probably the candidate I'd least want to face in the fall. I don't want to take the chance that he's a Bob Casey.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Republican Michigander @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 03:52:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gary Peters would be a fantastic Senator... (4.00 / 2)

...but we need him in the House for a few more years first!

---

by: Brainwrap @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 00:27:34 AM UTC

However.... Gary Peters has experience (0.00 / 0)

... running a gentlemanly campaign against Mike Cox and losing to him.  And that time he started with a big lead.

---

by: Grebner @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 00:37:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There was a third party candidate (0.00 / 0)

who drew a significant amount of votes.

This is not to imply that all those voters would have voted for Peters, but it had an affect, just like the three close Senate races that the Dems lost all had Green party candidates in them.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 01:21:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No - only two had Greens. (4.00 / 1)

The Kalamazoo seat was lost without Green help - they only sabotaged us in Oakland and Saginaw Counties.

In the AG race, if the Greens hadn't put Jerry Kaufman on the ballot, Peters would certainly have won, since Cox's margin was only about 5% as large as Kaufman's tally.  FWIW, Kaufman was a GREAT illustration of the "idealism" and "purity" that supposedly motivate the Greens: he had formerly run with Bob Tisch, and is basically a libertarian.  They put him on the ballot without the slightest effort to check him out.  So they siphoned votes from the Democrats to somebody who was MUCH worse on environmental issues than Peters.

---

by: Grebner @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 06:03:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given the size of the vote totals (0.00 / 0)

you are probably correct on the AG race.

But we can not assume that removing candidates would equal a one to one transfer of votes to the Dem column.

A significant portion of Green voters would stay home. Many more would find another third party candidate. Many more would vote for the Republican. Whatever was left over would vote for the Dem.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 17:14:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cox and Kwame? (0.00 / 0)

There were rumors that John Engler in 1990 made a deal with Coleman Young to suppress voter turnout in Detroit that year.  With a city voter turnout of 17% compared to 36% statewide that year, its plausible (though not proven AFAIK) that Engler's 19,000+ margin over Blanchard that year was entirely due to Young's machinations.

Similarly, I'd like to know what the voter turnout in Detroit in 2002 was compared to the rest of the state.  With all the talk about Cox doing Kwame a favor on the Manoogian mansion investigation, might it be that he owed Kwame a favor because Kwame suppressed turnout in his city by enough of a margin to allow Cox to beat Peters?

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 16:20:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What they say about Mr. Stupak in the U.P... (0.00 / 0)

If you'd like to see some of the things being said about Mr. Stupak in the U.P., the local TV station had an interesting story that it getting quite a few comments:

http://www.uppermichiganssourc...

Many people are dissatisfied with him.  The question was (and continues to be) WHO would they get to replace him? His opponent in the last election (Tom Casperson) is already registered to run for Mike Prusi's seat in the state senate.  So, even on the Republican side, there isn't anyone around (that I can name) who is in position to take over the seat.  After the Stupak Amendement, there is a LOT of interest in a primary challenger for Mr. Stupak (and I believe that a primary challenger would find him/her self WELL FINANCED, from national sources).  But THE QUESTION REMAINS - WHO WOULD THAT PERSON BE?

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 13:52:18 PM UTC

Internet comments... (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't read anything into those comments.  Media outlet Web sites are notorious havens for the far Right who see it as their personal mission to carry forth the message of conservatism.

Every week, it's virtually guaranteed that my column in the Mt. Pleasant paper will attract at least 20 comments from the same gang of people who spend their entire days leaving comments on everything the paper puts online.  The people who do this are universally from the right.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 14:07:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]